On 09/08/2017 01:19 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 13:03:00 +0200 > Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >> On 09/08/2017 12:49 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 12:45:25 +0200 >>> Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >>>> What do you think, would it make more sense to omit or to keep the testing >>>> stuff for v2 (I mean patch 5 and the kernel module in the cover letter)? >>> >>> Can you maybe split this out? It makes it easier if you don't have to >>> go hunt in a cover letter. >>> >> >> I'm not sure, I know what you mean. Adding an out-of-tree linux kernel >> module to >> the qemu tree does not sound right, so I suppose I should not send it as a >> patch. >> >> Splitting out the test device patch (#5) does not sound like a good idea >> either, >> because it depends on patches #1 and #4. >> >> TL;DR Yes, I would be glad to if you tell me how. > > I'd do a separate "series" with both the kernel and the qemu part, > stating the dependencies in the cover letter. Patchew will be unhappy, > but I will be happier :) >
I can do that, for me you are definitely more important than Patchew. The kernel module patch won't apply to the qemu tree so I can make it a two patch series without being too associal. >> >>>> >>>> You probably haven't found the time to look at have a glance at >>>> "s390x/css: drop >>>> data-check in interpretation" >>>> (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__patchwork.ozlabs.org_patch_810995_&d=DwICAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=afpWhmOLStQASenyglRLvnb_ajvdRfgp4RlDrLw42F4&m=hshoLebtV7YUijl44CLPl5gP9F1HrXyCbL85tQhvA1w&s=SjTjqdOybbUj1pGpODNHdUfXBZBZU-iav6j10EEWYfQ&e= >>>> ). We > > Unlikely to be of your doing, but wtf happened here? > Exactly that. We are fighting it. Corporate cyber-security policies are not exactly easy to fight. >>>> have said it would make some things more straight forward here, and I could >>>> drop that ugly TODO comment. I think it's quite straight-forward, and I >>>> would >>>> not mind having a decision on it before v2 or putting it as preparation >>>> into >>>> v2. What do you prefer? >>> >>> It is marked for my attention. I don't know whether I find time to look >>> at it today, but probably early next week. >>> >> >> OK. Btw, I have a couple of other bug-fixes in the pipe. I think I will just >> send out a v1 series to get the discussion started (and for now ignore >> possible >> merge conflicts with my patches already on the list). > > Don't worry about merge conflicts, I need to figure them out myself > anyway :) > OK. Many thanks! Halil
